A rank of spear gets a +4 and +1 for a second supporting rank of spear. Can it claim another +1 for a supporting Psiloi element behind the rear rank of spears?

Sp
Sp
Ps

The wording implies that you cant but if you can claim the plus 1 when Psiloi offer "diagonal support", surely you can claim it here?

[ October 04, 2005, 06:46: Message edited by: AlanYork ]

David Kuijt

10-04-2005, 10:06 AM

No. The wording is very clear. You can claim support from a second rank under some circumstances, but never from a third rank.

Stelzone

10-04-2005, 10:22 AM

DK,

That is not the way it was explained to me at a Historicon last year. The idea was the Ps were intermixed into the Sp and as such they could support from the third rank and support the Sp to either side as well. The non-support was for third rank Sp and Pk, not for the Ps. And I believe that this was from Phil himself.

Mike S.

Stelzone

10-04-2005, 10:26 AM

DK,

That is not the way it was explained to me at a Historicon last year. The idea was the Ps were intermixed into the Sp and as such they could support from the third rank and support the Sp to either side as well. The non-support was for third rank Sp and Pk, not for the Ps. And I believe that this was from Phil himself.

Mike S.

Snowtiger

10-04-2005, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by Stelzone:
DK,

That is not the way it was explained to me at a Historicon last year. The idea was the Ps were intermixed into the Sp and as such they could support from the third rank and support the Sp to either side as well. The non-support was for third rank Sp and Pk, not for the Ps. And I believe that this was from Phil himself.

Mike S. You are refering to the next situation, and then you are correct in that Double Sp gets support:

SP SP SP
SP Ps SP

The Ps in the centre supports all three front SP elements, The left and right flank elements could also benefit from Sp support.

But No support if it is

SP
SP
Ps

Cheers,

Anton

AlanYork

10-04-2005, 10:55 AM

Thanks Snowtiger, that was my interpretation of the first diagram with the "diagonal support", that's actually worded fairly clearly in the rules.

The second example, ie the one I asked about, is fairly clear also, I just wanted to make sure the rules actually said what I thought they said, as opposed to what I thought they may mean.

It's all clarified for me now.

As an aside, I am finding now that I'm getting more pleasure from playing DBA and big battle DBA than DBM. Maybe it's just my mind getting slower as I hit 40, but I find that DBM now has a level of complexity that I just can't be bothered with. They were amended recently, and in fairness the amendements are pretty good, benefiting infantry armies. However the tortuous writing style just sends me cold and quite literally gave me a headache when I tried to re read them.

Well anyway, I posted about this on a different website (The Miniatures Page) so perhaps this isn't the place to discuss it, besides it's off topic. So thanks again for your help and to the other responders too of course.

Kindest regards
Alan

[ October 04, 2005, 07:56: Message edited by: AlanYork ]

Stelzone

10-04-2005, 03:17 PM

Un fortunatly that is the way I thought it worked, But was told if it works that way why wouldn't it work in the other.
So I was told that (It was Phil or Mr. Barker in a more polite society; by the way who said this.)

SpSpSp Will give support
__Ps__

SpSpSp will give support
SpPsSp

SpSpSp will also give support
SpSpSp
__Ps __

I asked this after we had finished a game and were waiting for the next games to start. And the wording above was his not mine in the end. I was sure that the first two examples were right but bothered that there was a question about two and three being possible and his comment was if the first two work, why wouldn't the third as the support was really the psiloi mixed in with the spearmen giving the support. That is the way I hve been ruling and explaining it since. It maybe that he has changed his mind but it was what I got from him. I believe Bob has also ruled this way in the past.

I don't mind being wrong, I just don't like being wrong after asking him about it and having him change his mind later. It wasn't the last Historicon as I wasn't there, but the last East Con we were both at together.

[ October 04, 2005, 12:24: Message edited by: Stelzone ]

Pozanias

10-04-2005, 03:29 PM

Mike,

I think this is the danger of going to Phil with all of these questions. As I have said many times before (and you have as well ;) ), Phil has trouble keeping track of what he has actually written. I'm sure when you showed him the example, he thought it perfectly reasonable for the Ps to provide support as a third rank -- the problem is that is clearly not how he felt when he wrote the rules.

My feeling is this: the rules are pretty clear on this subject and we have a widely accepted interpretation in place, so why change a good thing? Ignore Phil and keep playing the way the rules are written and generally understood.

El' Jocko

10-04-2005, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by Stelzone:
I don't mind being wrong, I just don't like being wrong after asking him about it and having him change his mind later. I don't think that Mr. Barker really changes his mind on these things. Its more that if you ask him a question, you get a random answer. He just doesn't put enough effort into his response to give it any value. There are lots of reasons: he's busy, he's written scores of rules (including multiple versions of DBA), and he's got a lot on his plate right now. But mostly it's just not important to him to get it right.

- Jack

xeswop

10-04-2005, 03:45 PM

I have never asked Phil if this was legal
SpSpSp
SpPsSp

Because I am sure he would not allow it, but I am often wrong.

SpSpSp
SpSpSp
XXPsXX

Cannot be true because the actual rule uses term
"element of of Ps lined up IN CONTACT directly behind them.

Now my understanding of IN CONTACT may be wrong, but does that not mean "touching"

Originally posted by Stelzone:
and his comment was if the first two work, why wouldn't the third as the support was really the psiloi mixed in with the spearmen giving the support. That is the way I hve been ruling and explaining it since.Maybe that is the way it works in DBM, who knows? I don't blame you, Mike -- Phil has boobytrapped others in the past this way. And it certainly isn't deliberate by Phil -- I believe as Jack says, that Phil gives random answers.

With that said, however, I rather strongly believe that we (as umpires) have a responsibility to rule according to the written rules. If Phil wants to say in a conversation that 2+2=3, that is fine, but we cannot and should not start ruling that way in games -- it isn't fair to our players!

To be more clear:
</font> When Phil clarifies an unclear section of the rules, that is great. Not so great when Phil contradicts an earlier Phil ruling, of course -- but still, for Phil to give verbal guidance to umpires on how to rule on a case where the rules are not clear -- that's mostly a good thing.</font> When Phil contradicts his written rules with what he says verbally, we must be VERY careful. We cannot just go around saying "Phil said 2+2=3" because that is unfair to the people who have no way of knowing that in advance -- and they can read the rules themselves and see that Phil said (in print) that 2+2=4. Worse still, there is no guarantee that Phil may not also say (sooner or later) "2+2=5". Until Phil writes something down, his written rules must take precedence over anything he says in conversation. For example, you can't use "I heard Phil say Elephants only cost one pip" to contradict the rule saying Elephants cost two pips.</font>

AlanYork

10-04-2005, 05:22 PM

Personally I think Snowtiger's interpretation ties in with the rules. Having said that, if someone else has been told a different thing by Phil, then that person can hardly be blamed for playing the game differently.

The problem comes when, lets say I'm playing someone (not necessarliy the person who responded here, I'm just using this as an example) and he says "Psiloi in rank number 3 give me an extra +1 behind 2 ranks of spears"......"No they don't, that isn't what it says here" I reply...."But Phil says so, he told me himself" my opponent fires back.

I may never have met this guy before, I don't want to call him a liar, it's only a game after all, but then again, I only have his word for it, and it sure isn't what it says here in black and white. What am I supposed to do???

The only way to avoid this sort of embarassment IMO is to PLAY THE RULES AS THEY ARE WRITTEN!!. When Phil was consulted he might have been having a bad day, not heard the question properly, not understood it fully..who knows?

John Meunier

10-04-2005, 05:46 PM

Anyone else notice the irony in the title of this thread?

I am against the "Phil told me himself" rule of interpretation, too.

But, then, I'm in favor of the "just roll a die" and the "go ahead, it's no big deal" approach.

I know, this leaves me prey to unscrupulous cads and East Coasters bearing caramels.

AlanYork

10-04-2005, 08:41 PM

Yeah, the irony isn't lost on me. I do find this forum helpful though. It's always a big mistake to assume what applies in DBM also applies in DBA and I'm a DBM player who's starting to appreciate DBA having not played it much.

Snowtiger

10-04-2005, 09:06 PM

It is quite understandable to mix up rules from DBM and DBA if you play both:) And even more so if you have written the rules:) In DBM Ps in a third rank can offer support if they are Bw armed (Cb only from second rank).

I think that may clarify things a bit.
So in DBA (As it is written) they only give support from a second rank, and in DBM they can from a third rank (So it is written, so shall it be done)

Cheers,

Anton

David Kuijt

10-04-2005, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by John Meunier:

I know, this leaves me prey to unscrupulous cads and East Coasters bearing caramels. :mad: I resemble that remark! :D